IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA"

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Working Families Party, Christopher : M. Rabb, Douglas B. Buchholz, and : Kenneth G. Beiser, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 435 M.D : Argued: February 8, 2017 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Pedro A. Cortes, in his Official : Capacity as Secretary of the : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : and Jonathan M. Marks, in his : Official Capacity as Commissioner, : Bureau of Commissions, Elections : and Legislation, Department of State, : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondents : BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge 1 HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: September 18, 2017 Working Families Party, Christopher M. Rabb, Douglas B. Buchholz, and Kenneth G. Beiser (collectively, Working Families) have filed a petition for review in this Court s original jurisdiction 2 against the Commonwealth of 1 This case was decided before Judge Hearthway s term ended on September 1, Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code provides: (a) General rule.-the Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (Footnote continued on the next page... )

2 Pennsylvania; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Jonathan M. Marks, Commissioner of the Department of State s Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation (collectively, Commonwealth), challenging, as unconstitutional, several provisions of the Election Code 3 prohibit the nomination of a single candidate for public office by two or more political organizations. Such a nomination process is called fusion. 4 2 that Before the Court are the parties cross-applications for summary relief. Concluding that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code are constitutional under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, we deny Working Families application for summary relief and grant the Commonwealth s application for summary relief. Background & Procedural History The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. In the April 26, 2016, primary election, Christopher M. Rabb was nominated by the Democratic Party as its candidate for Representative of the General Assembly s 200th Legislative District. 5 In July 2016, approximately three months after the primary election, Working Families circulated papers to nominate Rabb as its candidate in the general election for Representative of the 200th Legislative District. On July (continued... ) (1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity. 42 Pa. C.S. 761(a)(1). 3 Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S Fusion as the word is used in electoral politics is a process by which two or more political [organizations] nominate one candidate for an office in an election. [I]n states that allow fusion, a single candidate appears as a representative for two or more [political organizations] for the same office in the general election. Stewart v. Taylor, 104 F.3d 965, 967 (7th Cir. 1997). 5 Rabb received 10,299 votes, constituting 47.23% of the total votes cast in the Democratic primary. Petition 20; Answer 20.

3 27, 2016, Working Families submitted Rabb s nomination papers with 958 signatures of registered voters in the 200th Legislative District, a Candidate Affidavit, Rabb s Statement of Financial Interests, and a check in the amount of $100 to Commissioner Marks office at the Department of State. text: Rabb altered his Candidate Affidavit by striking through the following that my name has not been presented as a candidate by nomination petitions for any public office to be voted for at the ensuing primary election, nor have I been nominated by any other nomination papers for any such office; that if I am a candidate for election at a general or municipal election I shall not be a registered and enrolled member of a political party at any time during the period of thirty (30) days prior to the primary up to and including the day of the following general or municipal election[.] Petition 25; Answer 25; Commonwealth s Application for Summary Relief Ex. 4. Rabb further altered his Candidate Affidavit by adding the following italicized text: I swear (or affirm) to the above parts as required by the laws applicable to the office I seek, having struck out certain parts based on my honest and sincere belief that they are violative of the Pennsylvania and U.S. [C]onstitutions. Working Families Application for Summary Relief 15; Commonwealth s Application for Summary Relief 15. two reasons. Commissioner Marks refused to process Rabb s nomination papers for First, Rabb had altered the form of the statutory candidate affidavit. Second, [Rabb s] name was already presented by nomination petitions in the General Primary, which precludes [him] from seeking the nomination of a 3

4 political body pursuant to 25 P.S. 2911(e)(5). 6 Commonwealth s Application for Summary Relief Ex. 6. On August 5, 2016, the Working Families Party, Rabb, and two voters residing in the 200th Legislative District, Douglas Buchholz and Kenneth Beiser, challenged Commissioner Marks decision with the instant lawsuit. Working Families petition for review included two counts. Count I requested a declaratory judgment that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code are unconstitutional under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Count II requested a writ of mandamus directing the Commonwealth to process Working Families nomination papers for Rabb and to prepare a general election ballot that showed Rabb s nomination by both the Democratic Party and Working Families Party for Representative to the General Assembly for the 200th Legislative District. 6 Section 951(e) of the Election Code provides: There shall be appended to each nomination paper offered for filing an affidavit of each candidate nominated therein, stating (1) the election district in which he resides; (2) the name of the office for which he consents to be a candidate; (3) that he is eligible for such office; (4) that he will not knowingly violate any provisions of this act, or of any law regulating and limiting election expenses, and prohibiting corrupt practices in connection therewith; (5) that his name has not been presented as a candidate by nomination petitions for any public office to be voted for at the ensuing primary election, nor has he been nominated by any other nomination papers filed for any such office; (6) that in the case where he is a candidate for election at a general or municipal election, he was not a registered and enrolled member of a party thirty (30) days before the primary held prior to the general or municipal election in that same year; (7) that, in the case where he is a candidate for election at a special election, he is not a registered and enrolled member of a party; and (8) that he is not a candidate for an office which he already holds, the term of which is not set to expire in the same year as the office subject to the affidavit. 25 P.S. 2911(e) (emphasis added). 4

5 Concluding that there were no disputed issues of fact, on August 25, 2016, this Court directed the parties to file applications for summary relief with supporting briefs. Working Families filed its application for summary relief on September 2, 2016, and the Commonwealth filed its application on September 7, On September 13, 2016, a panel heard oral argument. Following oral argument, this Court denied Working Families application for summary relief on Count II and granted corresponding relief to the Commonwealth. The Court held that mandamus was not the appropriate vehicle for testing the constitutionality of a statute and, thus, dismissed Count II of the petition for review. Working Families Party v. Commonwealth, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 435 M.D. 2016, filed September 30, 2016), slip. op. at Argument on the parties applications for summary relief on Count I of the petition for review seeking declaratory relief was heard in February 2017, before this Court en banc. In Count I, Working Families asks this Court to declare that the antifusion provisions of the Election Code violate the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Commonwealth responds that the anti-fusion provisions constitute a valid exercise of the legislature s power to regulate elections under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Historical Background We begin with a review of the relevant statutory provisions and case law precedent. In the 1800s and early 1900s, fusion was a common feature of many states electoral systems, including Pennsylvania s. See Timmons v. Twin 7 This mooted the Commonwealth s application for summary relief based on the assertion that Count II was barred by the doctrine of laches. 5

6 Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 356 (1997) ( Fusion was a regular feature of Gilded Age American politics. ). In 1937, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a comprehensive election statute, known as the Election Code, 25 P.S , to assure the efficiency and integrity of the electoral process. In re Street, 451 A.2d 427, 433 (Pa. 1982). Included therein, as an essential element of the Legislature s plan, are several anti-fusion provisions that forbid a single candidate in a statewide race from appearing on the ballot multiple times on behalf of more than one party. Id. The anti-fusion provisions ended party-raiding, which is the organized switching of blocks of voters from one party to another in order to manipulate the outcome of the other party s primary election. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 n.9 (1983). Party-raiding results in one political faction dominating both political parties in the primaries. The Election Code s ban on fusion remains in force today. 8 The Election Code divides political organizations into two classes: political parties and political bodies. Section 801 of the Election Code, 25 P.S The political party designation is further divided into major political 8 Notably, fusion is permitted for candidates for school board and courts of common pleas, municipal court, and magisterial district judges. See Section 910 of the Election Code, 25 P.S However, Sections 951(e)(5) and 976 of the Election Code prohibit minor political parties and political bodies from nominating the same candidate in a local race. See 25 P.S. 2911(e)(5), This disparate treatment was held unconstitutional in Patriot Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 95 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 1996), and reaffirmed as unconstitutional in Reform Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 1999). 9 Section 801 states, in relevant part, as follows: (a) Any party or political body, one of whose candidates at the general election next preceding the primary polled in each of at least ten counties of the State not less than two per centum of the largest entire vote cast in each of said counties for any elected candidate, and polled a total vote in the State equal to at least two per (Footnote continued on the next page... ) 6

7 parties and minor political parties. Section of the Election Code, 25 P.S This Court has explained the distinction between a political body and a political party as follows: (continued... ) centum of the largest entire vote cast in the State for any elected candidate, is hereby declared to be a political party within the State, and shall nominate all its candidates for any of the offices provided for in this act, and shall elect its delegates and alternate delegates to the National convention as party rules provide. State committee members, and also such party officers, including members of the National committee, as its rules provide, shall be elected by a vote of the party electors, in accordance with the provisions of this act and party rules. (b) Any party or political body, one of whose candidates at either the general or municipal election preceding the primary polled at least five per centum of the largest entire vote cast for any elected candidate in any county, is hereby declared to be a political party within said county; and shall nominate all its candidates for office in such county and in all political districts within said county, or of which said county forms a part, and shall elect such party officers as its rules provide shall be elected therein, by a vote of the party electors, in accordance with the provisions of this act. (c) Any political body which is not a political party, as hereinabove defined, but which has nominated candidates for such general or municipal election by nomination papers in the manner provided by this act, shall be deemed to be a political body within the meaning of this act, but such political body shall not be entitled to nominate its candidates or elect its party officers at primaries held under the provisions of this act. 25 P.S. 2831(a), (b), (c) (emphasis added). 10 Section was added by the Act of February 19, 1986, P.L. 29. It states, in relevant part, as follows: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this act to the contrary, minor political parties shall nominate all of their candidates for the offices to be filled at the ensuing November election pursuant to section 903 in accordance with the requirements of section 951, other than subsection (e)(6) and (7) thereof, and section 954, and shall obtain the required signatures during the same time frame available to political bodies. Minor political parties shall be subject to the provisions of this act applicable to political parties with respect to special elections, voter registration forms, substituted nominations and all other purposes except as otherwise expressly provided in this section. Minor political party (Footnote continued on the next page... ) 7

8 [A] political party is a group that receives more than a certain number of votes at the preceding general election and is permitted to select its candidates by the primary election method after which the prospective candidate places his or her name on the primary ballot by filing a nomination petition. Any other political group is a political body and must select its candidates by filing nomination papers. In re Zulick, 832 A.2d 572, 574 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (citations omitted). In short, a political party uses the primary election to nominate its candidate; a political body nominates its candidate by collecting the requisite number of signatures from electors, of any party or no party, and filing nomination papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code prohibit political parties and political bodies from nominating candidates already nominated by another political organization. Those anti-fusion provisions relevant to political bodies follow. Section 951(e)(5) of the Election Code requires a political body candidate to file an affidavit with the Commonwealth stating that his name has not been presented as a candidate by nomination petitions for any public office to be voted for at the ensuing primary election, nor has he been nominated by any other nomination papers filed for any such office[.] (continued... ) shall mean a political party as defined in section 801(a) or (b) whose State-wide registration is less than fifteen per centum of the combined State-wide registration for all State-wide political parties as of the close of the registration period immediately preceding the most recent November election. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall prescribe forms or, if there is insufficient time, make appropriate conforming changes in existing forms to carry out the purposes of this section. 25 P.S (a) (emphasis added). 8

9 25 P.S. 2911(e)(5). Likewise, the Secretary of the Commonwealth is required to reject nomination papers if the candidate named therein has filed a nomination petition for any public office for the ensuing primary, or has been nominated for any such office by nomination papers previously filed[.] Section 976 of the Election Code, 25 P.S (applicable to both political bodies and political parties). Finally, the Election Code prohibits a political body from filing a substitute nomination certificate for a candidate already nominated by another political party. Section 980 of the Election Code states: no substitute nomination certificate shall nominate any person who was a candidate for nomination by any political party for any office to be filled at the ensuing November election, whether or not nominated for such office by such political party, or who has already been nominated by any other political body for any office to be filled at the ensuing November or special election. 25 P.S Significantly, the Election Code has identical provisions prohibiting political parties from engaging in fusion. See Sections and of the Election Code, 25 P.S. 2870, Working Families concedes that the Election Code prohibits fusion of candidates in statewide races and makes no exception for major political parties. 11 Section 910 requires that a political party candidate file an affidavit with the Commonwealth stating that he is not a candidate for nomination for the same office of any party other than the one designated in such petition. 25 P.S Section 979 prohibits political parties, in the event of a vacancy, from nominating a candidate who has already been nominated by a political party or political body for the same office. It states: no substitute nomination certificate shall nominate any person who has already been nominated by any political party or by any other political body for the same office. 25 P.S

10 However, Working Families maintains that the so-called Magazzu Loophole, named after our Supreme Court s decision in Appeal of Magazzu, 49 A.2d 411 (Pa. 1946), allows major political parties to fuse their candidates in statewide races, such as those for General Assembly and United States Congress, but denies political bodies this opportunity. Appeal of Magazzu In the primary election of 1946, Pietro A. Magazzu was a Republican candidate for the office of representative in the General Assembly. 10 He was defeated by another Republican candidate. The Democratic ticket contained one candidate, Milo B. Serfas, and Magazzu defeated Serfas by write-in votes. The county board of elections refused to certify Magazzu as the nominee of the Democratic Party; instead, it certified Serfas. The issue presented to our Supreme Court was whether a candidate who had filed nominating petitions as a member of one party [was] ineligible to receive the nomination of another party for the same office by write-in or legal ballots or votes[.] Magazzu, 49 A.2d at 411. The Supreme Court recognized that the Election Code forbids a candidate from being nominated by more than one political party. However, the Court clarified that: [n]owhere in the act, or its amendments, is there a prohibition against a voter writing in or pasting in the name of a person for whom he desires to vote if such name is not printed on the ballot of the political party of which the voter is a member. Id. at 412. The Court also noted that the opportunity for write-in votes on a paper ballot is guaranteed by Section 1002(b) of the Election Code, which states: There shall be left at the end of the list of candidates as many blank spaces as there are persons to be voted for, for such office, in which space the elector may insert the name of any

11 person whose name is not printed on the ballot as a candidate for such office. 25 P.S. 2962(b). Similarly, Section 1216(e) provides a mechanism for write-in votes where voting is done by machine: [a] voter may, at any primary or election, vote for any person for any office, for which office his name does not appear upon the voting machine as a candidate, by an irregular ballot containing the name of such person deposited, written or affixed in or upon the appropriate receptacle or device provided in or on the machine for that purpose, and in no other manner. 25 P.S. 3056(e). 13 The Supreme Court held that Magazzu belonged on the general election ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for state representative. In Magazzu, one candidate by that name appeared on the general election ballot with a single party designation. Working Families notes that a candidate can win a major party s nomination in the primary and also win another party s nomination by means of write-in votes. In that case, the candidate will appear on the general election ballot as nominated by both major political parties. Working Families asserts that this happens with some regularity Serfas argument that the Election Code prohibited Magazzu from being certified as the Democratic Party s candidate was based on the use of machine ballots. A voting machine displays the names of candidates for each party and is locked so that the voter may only vote for a candidate listed for the voter s party. Serfas maintained that because Magazzu was identified as a Republican candidate on the voting machine, he was ineligible from receiving write-in votes as the Democratic candidate. Serfas conceded that this objection would not apply to a paper ballot, which lists only the candidates nominated by a voter s political party. The Court rejected this argument, stating that it could ascribe no intent to the legislature to differentiate in that respect between a paper and a machine ballot. Magazzu, 49 A.2d at Working Families compiled a list of elected state representatives with both Democratic and Republican designations. See Working Families Application for Summary Relief, Exhibit G. The list identified members of the General Assembly, both Senators and Representatives, who were designated Democratic/Republican in seven different election cycles from 2002 to (Footnote continued on the next page... ) 11

12 The Commonwealth responds that Working Families overstates the significance of our Supreme Court s holding in Magazzu. It contends that Magazzu simply established that the Election Code allows a voter to write in the name of a person for whom he desires to vote if such name is not printed on the ballot of the political party of which the voter is a member and to expect that vote to be counted. Magazzu, 49 A.2d at 412. Magazzu did not create a loophole from the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code. In any case, the Magazzu holding applies equally to major political parties, minor political parties, and political bodies. We agree. The holding in Magazzu does not authorize the two major parties to nominate a single candidate for statewide office. Rather, Magazzu stands for the simple proposition that in a primary election, a voter may write in the name of any person not printed on the ballot of the political party to which the voter belongs. Id. The write-in vote allows citizens to choose a candidate who does not have the support of the party establishment. A major party candidate can win his party s primary election and also win the other party s primary with write-in votes. In that case, the individual will appear on the ballot as the candidate for the two major parties in the general election. However, a political body candidate who has filed the requisite nomination papers prior to the primary election can also win the (continued... ) Some of those listed involved the same representative in succeeding election cycles. According to Working Families exhibit, the Democratic/Republican designations occurred 100 times in these seven election cycles. The General Assembly has 253 members. There are 50 Senators and 203 Representatives. Representatives are elected every two years, and Senators are elected every four years. 12

13 write-in vote for a major party in the primary and, thus, appear on the general election ballot as the candidate of a major party and of a political body. The anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code forbid the nomination of one candidate by more than one political organization for the same office. However, these provisions have nothing to do with the ability of voters to nominate a candidate by write-in vote. The potential for fusion by a successful write-in campaign is not limited to major party candidates. The same may be accomplished by a political body. We reject Working Families contention that Magazzu permits what the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code prohibit. Alleged Constitutional Violations With this background, we turn to the constitutional challenge Working Families has lodged against Sections 634, 910, 951, 976, 979, 980 and 1406 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. 2784, 2870, 2911, 2936, 2939, 2940, and These provisions, in various ways and at various steps in the electoral process, prohibit two or more political organizations from nominating a single candidate. The proscription applies both to political parties, major and minor, and to political bodies. I. Working Families first contends that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 15 More specifically, Working Families argues that 15 The Fourteenth Amendment provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (Footnote continued on the next page... ) 13

14 the anti-fusion provisions have a disparate impact on political bodies. Working Families concedes that it can use write-in votes to have its candidate also appear on the ballot as the candidate of a major party. However, it argues that the write-in path to fusion is far more difficult for political bodies than for major parties. For a major party to fuse its candidate with another party, a candidate submits a nomination petition with the requisite number of signatures to appear on the primary ballot. 16 Simultaneously, the party or candidate, or both, must launch a write-in campaign for the other major party s nomination in the primary. If the primary election results in the candidate winning the nomination of both parties, he will appear on the general election ballot as a candidate for both parties. For a political body to fuse, the task is different. 17 The political body s preferred candidate cannot file a nomination petition as a major party candidate and appear on the primary election ballot. The political body nominates its candidate by filing nomination papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth on or before August 1 st. If the political body wants to have its preferred candidate also appear on the general election ballot as a major party candidate, it must wage a write-in campaign. To do this, it will have to file its nomination papers before (continued... ) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1 (emphasis added). 16 The number of signatures required for nomination petitions of candidates for the primary election varies based on the office sought. See Section of the Election Code, added by the Act of December 12, 1984, P.L. 968, as amended, 25 P.S Working Families submits that since 2002, no political body or minor party candidates have successfully fused with a major party. 14

15 the primary election takes place. 18 Working Families Brief in Support of Summary Relief at 26. Notably, to sign a political body s nomination papers, the elector needs to be a registered voter, but he need not be a member of the political body. 19 Working Families contends that its path to fusion is more difficult and, thus, the fusion ban violates equal protection The signature requirement for statewide offices is found in Section 951(b) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. 2911(b). It requires a political body s nomination paper to include valid signatures equal to two percent of the vote total of the candidate with the largest number of votes for any statewide office in the previous election. Id. The dissent observes that political bodies must collect a high number of signatures to meet the dictates of Section 951(b). We note, first, that Working Families does not challenge the signature requirement for political bodies. To nominate a candidate for representative to the General Assembly in the 2016 election, Working Families was required to obtain a minimum of 495 signatures. Working Families obtained 958. For Working Familites, compliance with Section 951(b) was not onerous. We acknowledge, however, that Section 951(b) has been called into question with respect to the signature requirements for statewide elections. Recently, three Pennsylvania political bodies, the Constitution Party, Green Party, and Libertarian Party, launched a successful challenge to Section 951(b). They sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to be excused from complying with the signature requirement formula in Section 951(b). On June 30, 2016, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion and ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth to accept the political bodies nomination papers containing far fewer signatures than would have otherwise been required under Section 951(b). Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Cortés (E.D. Pa., No , order filed June 30, 2016). The district court s order is intended to replace the signature requirement imposed by Section 951(b), and sets forth a new, static signature requirement for certain offices. Id. (requiring, for example, a candidate for Attorney General to obtain 2,500 signatures including 250 from each of at least 5 counties). Notably, the district court s order does not create a new signature requirement for the office of state representative to the General Assembly, but requires candidates for all such non-statewide offices to comply with Section 951(b). Id. at 2, By contrast, only members of the major political party can sign a nomination petition to place a candidate on the primary election ballot. 20 The dissent notes that a major party, unlike a minor party or political body, may nominate by write in someone who has submitted a nomination petition for the other [major] party s primary. Dissenting op. at n.3. This difference is a function of the fact that only major parties (Footnote continued on the next page... ) 15

16 Working Families argument presupposes that a grass roots movement cannot successfully take on the candidate chosen by a major party s establishment, which commands the party s coffers and staff. Surely, the presidential race of 2016 undermines this assumption. One anti-establishment candidate was no doubt assisted by his personal fortune and a successful reality television show. However, the socialist candidate, lacking both attributes, almost defeated the other major party s establishment candidate. Fusion by write-in vote is different for a political body than for a major party because the Election Code sets up a different nomination procedure for each political organization. That a political body finds it difficult to have its candidate win a major party primary by write-in vote may be explained by the lack of an appealing candidate with an inspiring message. Acknowledging the political body s different path to fusion by a write-in campaign, we address Working Families equal protection claim. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has summarized the basic principles of equal protection as follows: The prohibition against treating people differently under the law does not preclude the Commonwealth from resorting to legislative classifications provided that those classifications are reasonable rather than arbitrary and bear a relationship to the object of the legislation. Kramer v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Rite Aid Corp.), 883 A.2d 518, 532 (Pa. 2005) (quoting Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265, (Pa. 1995)) (continued... ) file nomination petitions to place candidates on the primary election ballot. Any person, including a political body s candidate, can win a major party primary by write-in vote. 16

17 (emphasis added). 21 protection. In short, legislative classifications, per se, do not offend equal The level of scrutiny to be applied to a legislative classification depends upon the interest affected by the classification. Our Supreme Court has identified three levels of scrutiny: The types of classifications are: (1) classifications which implicate a suspect class or a fundamental right; (2) classifications implicating an important though not fundamental right or a sensitive classification; and (3) classifications which involve none of these. Id. Should the statutory classification in question fall into the first category, the statute is strictly construed in light of a compelling governmental purpose; if the classification falls into the second category, a heightened standard of scrutiny is applied to an important governmental purpose; and if the statutory scheme falls into the third category, the statute is upheld if there is any rational basis for the classification. Curtis, 666 A.2d at 268 (quoting Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 306, 311 (Pa. 1986)). Working Families asserts that the anti-fusion sections of the Election Code, in conjunction with the Magazzu holding, create a classification that treats political parties and political bodies differently with respect to their ability to fuse candidates. Working Families further argues that this classification affects the 21 In Kramer, the Court addressed equal protection claims under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. It recognized that [i]n evaluating equal protection claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution, this Court has employed the same standards applicable to federal equal protection claims. Kramer, 883 A.2d at 532. Accordingly, the analysis set forth in Kramer is applicable here, where Working Families brings its claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 17

18 fundamental right to vote, and thus, is subject to strict scrutiny review. 22 We disagree. First and foremost, the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code do not create a classification. They are facially neutral; they prohibit both political parties and political bodies from fusing their candidate with another political organization s candidate. This conclusion was reached by our Supreme Court in In re Street, 451 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1982). T. Milton Street filed nomination papers to appear on the general election ballot as candidate of the Milton Street Party, a political body, for the office of Representative of the Second District of Pennsylvania to the United States Congress. After Street s nomination papers were filed and accepted by the Secretary of State, the Republican Party s candidate withdrew from the election. The Republican Party then filed a substitute nomination certificate naming Street as its substitute nominee. The Democratic Party challenged the Republican Party s 22 Every law regulating election processes imposes some kind of burden upon a voter. Only where a law imposes a severe burden on the right to vote is it subject to strict scrutiny. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992). Working Families tries to make its equal protection claim a voting rights case by arguing that the anti-fusion provision forces [voters] to make a Hobson s choice between efficacy and fidelity to their own values. Working Families Brief in Support of Application for Summary Relief at 44. It contends that being presented with the choice to vote party or vote candidate burdens the voting rights of its members. The United States Supreme Court rejected the Hobson s choice argument in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 360 (1997). In Timmons, the Court of Appeals held that Minnesota s fusion ban forced members of the New Party to make a no-win choice between voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of winning or defecting to vote for a major party candidate. Id. In overruling the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the New Party remains free to endorse whom it likes, to ally itself with others, to nominate candidates for office, and to spread its message to all who will listen. Id. at 361. Indeed, every voter in every general election has to make hard choices, regardless of whether they are a member of a major party, a minor party or a political body. 18

19 substitute nomination certificate under Section 979 of the Election Code. The Commonwealth Court granted the Democratic Party s requested relief to set aside the substitute nomination certificate. Before the Supreme Court, Street conceded that his substitute nomination by the Republican Party violated Section 979 of the Election Code, which states that no substitute nomination certificate shall nominate any person who has already been nominated by any political party or by any other political body for the same office. 25 P.S Street raised several constitutional challenges to Section 979 of the Election Code, including equal protection. Street argued that Section 979 violated equal protection of law because it treated political bodies and political parties alike even though they are different. Street conceded that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code promoted the legitimate state interest of preventing party-raiding. However, the prohibition against a party s substitute nomination of a candidate who has already been nominated by a political body failed to further this, or any other legitimate state interest. The Supreme Court disagreed. It rejected Street s theory that political bodies must be treated differently than political parties, noting, instead, that it was the differentiation proposed by Street that posed an equal protection issue. The Supreme Court held that facially discriminatory anti-fusion laws do not violate equal protection, explaining: Under Pennsylvania s Election Code political parties and political bodies are treated equally: neither may nominate, either initially or through substitution, a candidate for the general election who has already been nominated by another political group. 19

20 In re Street, 451 A.2d at 431. Because anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code were facially neutral, Street did not meet the threshold burden of demonstrating a legislative classification. Section 979 of the Election Code was at issue in In re Street, but the Supreme Court s analysis applies with equal force to the other anti-fusion provisions in the Election Code challenged here by Working Families. Nor does Magazzu treat political parties and political bodies differently. As Working Families concedes, fusion is available to a political party and a political body so long as it is accomplished by write-in votes. To the extent a successful write-in campaign in the primary is harder for a political body candidate to achieve, this is a fortuity arising from factual circumstances, such as finances and organization, external to the statute. Even assuming, arguendo, that Working Families has identified a disparate impact on political bodies, we reject its contention that this creates a classification that requires a strict scrutiny review. The right to vote is not impacted by anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code. Citizens of the Commonwealth are free to cast their vote for their candidate of choice, by write-in or otherwise. To the extent Magazzu implicates the right to vote, it protects the right by assuring that write-in votes will be counted. In re Street, 451 A.2d 427, is dispositive of Working Families equal protection claim. In arguing otherwise, Working Families points to Reform Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 1999), which considered the provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code that allowed major parties to fuse candidates for certain local races but expressly prohibited minor parties from doing so. See Sections 951(e)(5) and 976 of the 20

21 Election Code, 25 P.S. 2911(e)(5), The Court of Appeals held that the prohibition of fusion in local races by political bodies and minor parties violated equal protection and was unconstitutional. Because Reform Party considered facially discriminatory statutory provisions in the Election Code, it is inapposite. Even so, the Court of Appeals did not apply a strict scrutiny standard of review for deciding the equal protection challenge. Rather, it applied an intermediate level of scrutiny, which weighed the burden imposed against any plausible justification the State has advanced for imposing unequal burdens on major and minor parties. Reform Party, 174 F.3d at 315. As set forth below, the Commonwealth has offered a justification for the burden that passes the intermediate standard of review applied in Reform Party. Working Families equal protection argument is not based upon the language of the Election Code but, rather, upon the premise that Magazzu has excused political parties from the anti-fusion dictates of the Election Code. This is not a correct understanding of Magazzu, which allows a candidate to win a primary election by write-in votes even though he appeared on the primary ballot for another political party. In In re Street, 451 A.2d 427, our Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code, and it did so more than 30 years after its holding in Magazzu. Magazzu does not require a re-examination of the holding reached in In re Street. II. Working Families next argues that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code violate Article I, Sections 5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. These provisions provide for free and equal elections, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. We consider these claims ad seriatim. 21

22 Speech and Association The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and freedom to associate with others. Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in relevant part: Article I, Section 7 of the The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. PA. CONST. art. I, 7. Article I, Section 20 guarantees the right to associate. It reads: PA. CONST. art. I, 20. rights. 23 The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. Freedom of speech and association undeniably constitute fundamental In re Nader, 905 A.2d 450, 465 (Pa. 2006). Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has recognized that in the context of election law, not all restrictions imposed by [] States on candidates eligibility for the ballot impose constitutionally-suspect burdens on voters rights to associate or choose among candidates. Id. (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983)). The Commonwealth may, and inevitably must, enact substantial regulation containing reasonable, non-discriminatory restrictions to ensure honest and fair elections that 23 Working Families does not separate its speech rights and associational rights claims. They are one and the same in the context of a ballot access claim. 22

23 proceed in an orderly and efficient manner. Banfield v. Cortés, 110 A.3d 155, (Pa. 2015). In deciding whether the Election Code s anti-fusion provisions violate speech and associational rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution, we weigh the character and magnitude of the burden imposed by the provisions against the interests proffered to justify that burden. Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358. The Pennsylvania Constitution affords greater protection of speech and associational rights than does our Federal Constitution. See DePaul v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 536, 546 (Pa. 2009) (noting, inter alia, that Article I, Section 7 is the ancestor, not a stepchild, of the First Amendment ). Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has explained that reference to First Amendment authority remains instructive in construing Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. at 547. Working Families argues that prohibiting a political body from fusing its candidate with a major party candidate denies the political body freedom of expression and association. 24 It is barred from choosing the most attractive candidate willing to accept its nomination. Working Families further argues that the fusion ban violates the speech and associational rights of candidates and of voters. It contends that the Election Code s burden on speech and association requires a strict scrutiny review. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the fusion ban in the Election Code does not violate the First Amendment. It explained as follows: 24 Nothing in the Election Code prevents a major party candidate from associating with a political body and expressing support for the political body s values and platform. In a general election, a candidate reaches out to all voters, not just those in the party that nominated him. To this end, candidates seek endorsements from a wide spectrum of individuals and interest groups. 23

24 While the right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs includes the right to advance a candidate who represents those interests, the ballot access cases of the United States Supreme Court make it clear that the right of association does not encompass the right to nominate as a candidate a particular individual who fails to meet reasonable eligibility requirements... Where, as here, the challenged requirement simply prohibits the nomination of a candidate who is already on the ballot, it cannot reasonably be said that this requirement unfairly or unnecessarily burden[s] either a minority party s or an individual candidate s equally important interest in the continued availability of political opportunity. In re Street, 451 A.2d at 432 (quoting Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 716 (1974) (emphasis added)). Here, the most recent ballot access case is Timmons, 520 U.S. 351, which was decided a generation after In re Street. In Timmons, the New Party, a minor political party as defined in Minnesota election law, sought to nominate Andy Dawkins as its candidate for Minnesota State Representative. Dawkins had previously filed as a candidate for State Representative of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, a major political party, and was running unopposed. Neither Dawkins nor the Democratic- Farmer-Labor Party objected to the New Party s nomination of Dawkins, and he filed the required candidate affidavit with election officials. Minnesota s election law prohibited fusion candidacies. Because Dawkins had already filed a petition to be a candidate for the Democratic-Farmer- Labor Party s nomination, local election officials refused to accept the New Party s nomination petition naming Dawkins. As a result, the New Party filed suit contending that Minnesota s election laws prevented it from selecting and associating with its candidate of choice. In rejecting the New Party s claim, the Supreme Court explained: 24

25 The New Party s claim that it has a right to select its own candidate is uncontroversial, so far as it goes... That is, the New Party, and not someone else, has the right to select the New Party s standard bearer. It does not follow, though, that a party is absolutely entitled to have its nominee appear on the ballot as that party s candidate... That a particular individual may not appear on the ballot as a particular party s candidate does not severely burden that party s associational rights. Timmons, 520 U.S. at 359 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Court further observed that the anti-fusion sections of Minnesota s election law merely reduce[d] the universe of potential candidates who may appear on the ballot as the party s nominee... Id. at 363. The United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that antifusion laws severely burden the First Amendment guarantee of speech and association because the primary purpose of a ballot is to elect candidates, not to serve as a forum of political expression. The Supreme Court reasoned as follows: It is true that Minnesota s fusion ban prevents the New Party from using the ballot to communicate to the public that it supports a particular candidate who is already another party s candidate. In addition, the ban shuts off one possible avenue a party might use to send a message to its preferred candidate because, with fusion, a candidate who wins an election on the basis of two parties votes will likely know more if the parties votes are counted separately about the particular wishes and ideals of his constituency. We are unpersuaded, however, by the party s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidate. Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression... Like all parties in Minnesota, the New Party is able to use the ballot to communicate information about itself and its candidate to the voters, so long as that candidate is not already someone else s candidate. The party retains great latitude in its ability to communicate ideas to voters and candidates through its participation in the campaign, and party members may campaign for, endorse, and vote for 25

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re The Nomination Petition of Rodney A. Bedow, Sr. for Member of the Republican State Committee from Venango County in the Primary Election of April 27, 2004

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas E. Huyett, : : Petitioner : : v. : No. 516 M.D. 2015 : Submitted: February 10, 2017 Pennsylvania State Police, : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : : Respondent

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William Penn School District; : Panther Valley School District; : The School District of Lancaster; : Greater Johnstown School District; : Wilkes-Barre Area School

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE MATTER OF THE NOMINATION PAPER OF NICOLE PRIMAS GAINES Candidate for Representative in the General Assembly from the No. 728 M.D. 1998 24 th Legislative

More information

2:12-cv PDB-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/16/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 423 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

2:12-cv PDB-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/16/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 423 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 2:12-cv-12782-PDB-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 08/16/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 423 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MICHIGAN, GARY JOHNSON and DENEE ROCKMAN- MOON, v. RUTH JOHNSON, Secretary of State of Michigan, in her official capacity,

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE March 2, All County Contact Persons For Elections

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE March 2, All County Contact Persons For Elections COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE March 2, 2015 SUBJECT: TO: FROM: Nomination Papers All County Contact Persons For Elections Jonathan Marks, Commissioner Bureau of Commissions, Elections

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Substitute Nomination Certificate : of Chris Ross as Republican Candidate : for the Pennsylvania House of : Representatives in the 158th Legislative : District

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Democratic Party : and Emilio A. Vazquez, : Petitioners : : v. : : The Pennsylvania Department of State, : The Hon. Pedro A. Cortes, and Jonathan

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs : Association, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 959 C.D. 2009 : Argued: April 17, 2013 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, : Respondent

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: May 15, 2001 Municipal : Primary for the Republican : Nomination of Candidates for : Township Treasurer and : Township Commissioner : in Kennedy Township,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Craig A. Bradosky, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1567 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: December 8, 2017 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Omnova Solutions, Inc.), : Respondent

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Advancement Project and : Marian K. Schneider, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2321 C.D. 2011 : Argued: June 4, 2012 Pennsylvania Department of : Transportation, :

More information

Honorable Michael Folmer, Chair Senate Government Affairs Committee and all of the Honorable Members of the Committee

Honorable Michael Folmer, Chair Senate Government Affairs Committee and all of the Honorable Members of the Committee MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Michael Folmer, Chair Senate Government Affairs Committee and all of the Honorable Members of the Committee DATE: September 22, 2015 RE: Testimony regarding SB 495 PN 499 - the

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Nomination Petition of : Patrick Parkinson As Democratic : Candidate for Office of : Committee Person : No. 488 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: April 4, 2014 Appeal

More information

In The United States District Court For The Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division

In The United States District Court For The Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division In The United States District Court For The Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division Libertarian Party of Ohio, Plaintiff, vs. Jennifer Brunner, Case No. 2:08-cv-555 Judge Sargus Defendant. I. Introduction

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Norman E. Gregory, Petitioner v. No. 245 M.D. 2015 Submitted February 23, 2018 Pennsylvania State Police, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President

More information

Constitutional Law - Burdick v. Takushi: Upholding Hawaii's Ban on Write-in Voting

Constitutional Law - Burdick v. Takushi: Upholding Hawaii's Ban on Write-in Voting Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey Article 11 January 1992 Constitutional Law - Burdick v. Takushi: Upholding Hawaii's Ban on Write-in Voting Elizabeth E. Deighton

More information

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL No. Session of 0 INTRODUCED BY SIMMONS, KAUFFMAN, CALTAGIRONE, GROVE, GILLEN, ROTHMAN, COX, GABLER AND METCALFE, FEBRUARY,

More information

Case 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30

Case 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30 Case 2:16-cv-00038-DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30 Marcus R. Mumford (12737) MUMFORD PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 428-2000 Email: mrm@mumfordpc.com

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Nomination Papers of Marakay Rogers, : Christina Valente and Carl J. Romanelli as : Candidates of an Independent Political : Body for Governor, Lieutenant

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: General Election 2014 : Muriel Kauffman : : Appeal of: Helen Banushi, : Philadelphia Registered Elector : and Elizabeth Elkin, : No. 2043 C.D. 2014 Philadelphia

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Apartment Association of : Metropolitan Pittsburgh, Inc. : : v. : No. 528 C.D. 2018 : ARGUED: February 12, 2019 The City of Pittsburgh, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Nominating Petition of Barbara : May for Judge of the Common Pleas : Court of Montgomery County, : No. 143 M.D. 2009 Pennsylvania : : Objection of: Brian

More information

3 GCA ELECTIONS CH. 15 CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS

3 GCA ELECTIONS CH. 15 CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS CHAPTER 15 CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all sections within this chapter were added to the Government Code of Guam by P.L. 10-151 (June 24, 1970). During the Fifteenth Guam

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0212p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF KENTUCKY; LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL

More information

How to Fill a Vacancy

How to Fill a Vacancy How to Fill a Vacancy Ventura County Elections Division MARK A. LUNN Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 9009-00 (805) 654-664 venturavote.org Revised 0//7 Contents

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:18-cv-12354-VAR-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 07/27/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER GRAVELINE, WILLARD H. JOHNSON,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv GCM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv GCM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv-00192-GCM NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION ) PARTY, AL PISANO, NORTH ) CAROLINA GREEN PARTY, and ) NICHOLAS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION SOUTH CAROLINA GREEN PARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dana Holding Corporation, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1869 C.D. 2017 : Argued: September 13, 2018 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Smuck), : Respondent : BEFORE:

More information

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE Please note that the information contained in this document is subject to change without notice in the event of the passage of amendatory legislation.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Alton D. Brown, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1347 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: May 5, 2017 Mike Zaken; Deputy Dialesandro; : Tracy Shawley; Irma Vihlidal; Capt. : Schrader;

More information

Case 4:05-cv HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 16 of 30

Case 4:05-cv HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 16 of 30 Case 4:05-cv-00201-HLM Document 47-3 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 16 of 30 Because Plaintiffs' suit is against State officials, rather than the State itself, a question arises as to whether the suit is actually

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pentlong Corporation, a Pennsylvania : Corporation, and Weitzel, Inc., : a Pennsylvania Corporation, : individually and on behalf of : themselves all others similarly

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Joseph Smull, Petitioner v. No. 614 M.D. 2011 Pennsylvania Board of Probation Submitted August 17, 2012 and Parole, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE RENÉE COHN

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of York : : v. : No. 2624 C.D. 2010 : Argued: October 18, 2011 International Association of : Firefighters, Local Union No. 627, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 930 VICTORIA BUCKLEY, SECRETARY OF STATE OF COLORADO, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN CONSTITU- TIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION The League of Women Voters, et al. Case No. 3:04CV7622 Plaintiffs v. ORDER J. Kenneth Blackwell, Defendant This is

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. STENGEL, J. March 8, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. STENGEL, J. March 8, 2013 Case 5:12-cv-02726-LS Document 34 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION PARTY, et al., : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs 1 : : vs.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re Petition for Agenda Initiative to Place a Proposed Ordinance on the Agenda of a Regular Meeting of Council for Consideration and Vote as Follows "An Ordinance

More information

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 1 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, INC.; BARRY HESS; PETER SCHMERL; JASON AUVENSHINE; ED KAHN, Plaintiffs, vs. JANICE K. BREWER, Arizona Secretary of State, Defendant.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Armour Pharmacy, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1725 C.D. 2017 : Argued: December 12, 2018 Bureau of Workers Compensation : Fee Review Hearing Office : (Wegman's Food

More information

Case: 3:15-cv jdp Document #: 66 Filed: 12/17/15 Page 1 of 11

Case: 3:15-cv jdp Document #: 66 Filed: 12/17/15 Page 1 of 11 Case: 3:15-cv-00324-jdp Document #: 66 Filed: 12/17/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ONE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE, INC., CITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION Case 2:12-cv-00042-WKW-CSC Document 64 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JILL STEIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

More information

Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath

Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5 Affidavit Earl 6 Affidavit Redpath Libertarian Party of Ohio et al v. Husted, Docket No. 2:13-cv-00953 (S.D. Ohio Sept 25, 2013), Court Docket Part Description 1 10 pages 2 Exhibit Consent Decree 3 Affidavit Knedler 4 Affidavit Harris 5

More information

Case: 2:12-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858

Case: 2:12-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858 Case: 2:12-cv-00636-PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OBAMA FOR AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:12-cv-01822-RWS Document 1 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GREEN PARTY OF GEORGIA, CONSTITUTION PARTY OF GEORGIA, Plaintiffs

More information

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. [J-90-2018] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. CHRISTINE A. REUTHER AND ANI MARIE DIAKATOS, v. Appellants DELAWARE COUNTY

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 10-1360 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. GARDNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA National Rifle Association, Shawn : Lupka, Curtis Reese, Richard Haid : and Jeffrey Armstrong, : Appellants : : v. : No. 2048 C.D. 2009 : Argued: April 20, 2010

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No Case: 09-2227 Document: 00319762032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2009 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-2227 CHUCK BALDWIN, DARRELL R. CASTLE, WESLEY THOMPSON, JAMES E. PANYARD,

More information

S09A1367. FAVORITO et al. v. HANDEL et al. After a Pilot Project was conducted in 2001 pursuant to Ga. L. 2001, pp.

S09A1367. FAVORITO et al. v. HANDEL et al. After a Pilot Project was conducted in 2001 pursuant to Ga. L. 2001, pp. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 28, 2009 S09A1367. FAVORITO et al. v. HANDEL et al. CARLEY, Presiding Justice. After a Pilot Project was conducted in 2001 pursuant to Ga. L. 2001, pp.

More information

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781 Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 781 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs,

More information

Download Nomination Petitions - IMPORTANT NOTICE

Download Nomination Petitions - IMPORTANT NOTICE Download Nomination Petitions - IMPORTANT NOTICE Nomination petitions must be printed as duplex (two-sided, front and back) on plain white 8 1/2" x 11" (letter-size) paper. This requirement cannot be satisfied

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Michael McGarry, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 740 M.D. 2002 : Submitted: February 21, 2003 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, et. al., : Respondents

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, by Linda L. Kelly, Attorney General, No. 432 M.D. 2009 Submitted April 13, 2012 Petitioner v. Packer

More information

Republican Party of Minnesota

Republican Party of Minnesota Republican Party of Minnesota http://www.gopmn.org/info.cfm?x=2&pname=seltype&pval=2&pname2=tdesc&pval2=constitution CONSTITUTION Preamble The Republican Party of Minnesota welcomes into its party all

More information

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION Preamble The Republican Party of Minnesota welcomes into its party all Minnesotans who are concerned with the implementation of honest, efficient, responsive

More information

Case 1:17-cv SS Document 1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv SS Document 1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:17-cv-01167-SS Document 1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS; ) JAMES R. DICKEY, in

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Reading City Council, : Appellant : : v. : : No. 29 C.D. 2012 City of Reading Charter Board : Argued: September 10, 2012 BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

More information

Case 1:14-cv MV-GBW Document 17 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:14-cv MV-GBW Document 17 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:14-cv-00617-MV-GBW Document 17 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JAMES T. PARKER, vs. Plaintiff, Civil No. 14-cv-617 MV-GBW DIANNA J.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Rodney Derrickson, : Appellant : : v. : No. 913 C.D. 2007 : Submitted: March 12, 2008 Kathleen Sluzevich, C.E.V.A., : Robert Unell, C.C.P.M.; Serena : Saar, C.E.V.A.;

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph E. De Ritis, : Petitioner : : v. : : Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : No. 1952 C.D. 2013 Respondent : Submitted: May 23, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 119

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 119 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 119 * * * We hesitate to disagree with the authority of this opinion, but its logic would lead us into other positions to which we could not agree. Potatoes and other vegetables

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Angelo Armenti, Jr., : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania State System : of Higher Education and The Board : of Governors of the Pennsylvania : State System of

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND BRIAN MONTEIRO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE, ) EAST PROVIDENCE CANVASSING AUTHORITY, ) C.A. No. 09- MARYANN CALLAHAN,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Adams County Tax Claim : Bureau : : Sailors Derek and Maureen : No. 1415 C.D. 2017 43006-0093---000 : Sale No. 0533 : Argued: September 12, 2018 : Appeal

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Ruben M. Collazo, : Appellant : : No. 175 C.D v. : Submitted: July 17, 2015 : Mount Airy #1, LLC :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Ruben M. Collazo, : Appellant : : No. 175 C.D v. : Submitted: July 17, 2015 : Mount Airy #1, LLC : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ruben M. Collazo, : Appellant : : No. 175 C.D. 2015 v. : Submitted: July 17, 2015 : Mount Airy #1, LLC : OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED:

More information

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE Please note that the information contained in this document is subject to change without notice in the event of the passage of amendatory legislation.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Jon Husted et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on September 21, 2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Jon Husted et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on September 21, 2017 Libertarian Party of Ohio, : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 16AP-496 v. : (C.P.C. No. 16CV-554) Jon Husted et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) DORRIAN, J.

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Case: 14-1873 Document: 29-1 Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 1 (1 of 8 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MATT ERARD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MICHIGAN

More information

Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. SUMMARY Creates a modified blanket primary election system.

Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. SUMMARY Creates a modified blanket primary election system. S.B. SENATE BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE OPERATIONS AND ELECTIONS MARCH, 0 Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections SUMMARY Creates a modified blanket primary election system.

More information

May 16, Law I Analysis

May 16, Law I Analysis ALAN WILSON A TIORNEY GENERAL The Honorable Tom Young, Jr. Member, House of Representatives Post Office Box 651 Aiken, South Carolina 29802 Dear Representative Young: You have asked whether those persons

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-730 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF WASHINGTON;

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW SENATE BILL 656

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW SENATE BILL 656 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW 2017-214 SENATE BILL 656 AN ACT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A "POLITICAL PARTY" BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR THE FORMATION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 09/26/13 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al. Plaintiffs, Case

More information

Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing elections. (BDR )

Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing elections. (BDR ) * S.B. 0 SENATE BILL NO. 0 SENATOR SETTELMEYER PREFILED FEBRUARY, 0 Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections SUMMARY Revises provisions governing elections. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect

More information

CASE NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASE NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-35967, 02/12/2016, ID: 9864857, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 14 CASE NO. 15-35967 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAVALLI COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, GALLATIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN

More information

Ch. 171 VOTING RIGHTS Subpart D. ELECTIONS

Ch. 171 VOTING RIGHTS Subpart D. ELECTIONS Ch. 171 VOTING RIGHTS 4 171.1 Subpart D. ELECTIONS Chap. Sec. 171. VOTING RIGHTS... 171.1 172. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 172.1 173. FEES... 173.1 174. REPORTS OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS... 174.1 175. SPECIAL

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sherri A. Falor, : Appellant : : v. : No. 90 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: September 11, 2014 Southwestern Pennsylvania Water : Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH

More information

MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATION

MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATION MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATION Municipal Consolidation Act N.J.S.A. 40:43-66.35 et seq. Sparsely Populated Municipal Consolidation Law N.J.S.A. 40:43-66.78 et seq. Local Option Municipal Consolidation N.J.S.A.

More information

NOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]

NOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable

More information

342 F3d 1073 Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a Political Committee v. Cenarrussa. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

342 F3d 1073 Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a Political Committee v. Cenarrussa. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 342 F3d 1073 Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a Political Committee v. Cenarrussa Idaho Coalition United for Bears, a political committee; Lynn Fritchman, an individual; Don Morgan, an individual; Ronald

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mohammad Fahad v. No. 392 C.D. 2017 Submitted November 9, 2018 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, Appellant

More information

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED APRIL, 0 Sponsored by: Senator JENNIFER BECK District (Monmouth) SYNOPSIS Proposes constitutional amendment to provide for

More information

Achieving Universal Voter Registration Through the Massachusetts Health Care Model: Analysis and Sample Statutory Language

Achieving Universal Voter Registration Through the Massachusetts Health Care Model: Analysis and Sample Statutory Language The Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 - (301) 270-4616 (301) 270 4133 (fax) info@fairvote.org www.fairvote.org Achieving Universal Voter Registration Through

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Human Services, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1108 C.D. 2015 : Argued: September 14, 2016 Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, Inc., : Respondent : BEFORE:

More information

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI June, 2017 CONTENTS PAGES 1. Extracts from the Constitution... 1 10 2. The Presidential and

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kevin E. Wright, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 332 M.D. 2014 : Submitted: February 6, 2015 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN

More information

Case 2:12-cv RBS Document 2 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS,

Case 2:12-cv RBS Document 2 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS, Case 2:12-cv-00556-RBS Document 2 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA -----------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GSP Management Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 40 C.D. 2015 : Argued: September 17, 2015 Duncansville Municipal Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI,

More information

P.L. 2018, CHAPTER 20, approved May 30, 2018 Senate, No. 868

P.L. 2018, CHAPTER 20, approved May 30, 2018 Senate, No. 868 P.L. 0, CHAPTER 0, approved May 0, 0 Senate, No. 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning the candidates and ballots in annual school elections, and amending P.L., c. (C.:0- et seq.). BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General

More information

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PHILIP P. KALODNER IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PHILIP P. KALODNER IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY No. 18-422 In the Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT A. RUCHO, et al Appellants v. COMMON CAUSE, et al Appellees On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph D. Piunti, Esq. and Joseph Bernardino, Esq. and James S. Dooley, Esq. and David L. Bargeron, Esq., Petitioners v. No. 482 M.D. 2005 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jesse James Spellman, : Appellant : : v. : No. 124 C.D. 2017 : Argued: November 15, 2017 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau

More information

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Voting Rights Act of 1965 1 Voting Rights Act of 1965 An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

More information

The Georgia Green Party Nominating Convention Rules & Regulations

The Georgia Green Party Nominating Convention Rules & Regulations The Georgia Green Party Nominating Convention Rules & Regulations as adopted by consensus, May 4, 1996, and as amended by Council, 4/23/98, 11/24/98, 12/12/98, 5/1/00, 4/16/01, 6/10/01, 8/18/01, 12/15/02,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Kenneth Sammons, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 548 M.D. 2006 : Argued: March 5, 2007 Pennsylvania State Police, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

More information

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR. SENATE, Nos and 1990 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE ADOPTED JANUARY 23, 2017

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR. SENATE, Nos and 1990 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE ADOPTED JANUARY 23, 2017 SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE, Nos. and 0 STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE ADOPTED JANUARY, 0 Sponsored by: Senator JOSEPH F. VITALE District (Middlesex) Senator STEPHEN M. SWEENEY District

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Firefighters Union, : Local 22, International Association of : Firefighters, AFL-CIO by its guardian : ad litem William Gault, President, : Tim McShea,

More information